Face / Off

No more drugs for that man.

Director: John Woo

Writers: Mike Werb

                Michael Colleary

Oh my gosh, I love this film. It's such a cheesy ball of 90's clichéd action fluff. One of my top 10 favourite films. It's clichéd and ever so quotable and it's got the absolute best concept of any film ever. Over actor John Travolta has to overact like over actor Nicolas Cage and over actor Nicolas Cage has to act like over actor John Travolta. What a concept. Why don't films do this more often? I don't know what combination could be better, maybe Amy Schumer and someone who's actually funny and doesn't just talk about their sex life for comedy? Nah probably wouldn't work that would mean she'd have to be funny in the first place.

Now I don't know what to talk about here because...I've already talked about the absolute best thing about this film, do I talk about the negatives? Of course I do. The biggest problem with this film? The whole operation is a "black bag" operation meaning that it's strictly off the books and nobody is going to know about it aside from the doctors involved. Not his boss and not his wife. Nobody. Not even people at the super top security prison. This could easily lead to a problem yes? Seems like nobody thought there could be any sort of issue with this fool proof super secret plan. Not like Travolta as Cage could go into this prison and...shit I don't know, maybe get beaten to a point it could be fatal. Maybe the people involved in this could be called away on business, or sick, or dead and nobody could collect Travolta as Cage as it was scheduled. You see, I feel like this entire thing could have been avoided if someone had informed someone at the prison, or Travolta's higher up's or even his wife like...if she knew about this she could pick up on Travolta's weird behaviour earlier and the majority of this could have been avoided. However, saying that it could have been avoided, why would anyone want it to be? I mean, yeah, being in the situation would be really shit but then for a viewer...it's pretty fun.

The effects in this film are incredible. They really are, it's a good mix of  CGI and practical effects and the CGI is pretty rare, you done good effects department, you done good. If this was made today then I guess that a lot of it would be CG explosions done by Michael Bay but here, the explosions are fireworks really, you know those crap ones you buy yourself for bonfire night? Yeah those ones, yet they're more impactful because they're really there. What adds to the effects is the amount of research Cage and Travolta did. Both into their characters and each others acting methods. It's really impressive to watch from an actor's standpoint. The level of effort and delicate care that went into these performances is so high and I don't think I'll see it again anytime soon. 

By the way, don't get me wrong on this. This might be an explosive, big, action dick-flick, which is a chick flick but...for guys so it's a dick-flick. Despite that, there's a genuinely emotional scene towards the start of the third act. During a massive fight scene, Sean Archer as Castor Troy (Travolta as Cage) knocks Pollux Troy (Alessandro Nivola) from his high vantage point and to his death around a 5 story fall through glass. On the surface, given how much time the Troy brothers spent together on screen you shouldn't feel anything for the death of the younger and yet...it's truly heartbreaking to watch. There's enough exposition given in their first few lines and it fills you in on enough of their past to show you their bond. Hell, Castor even ties his younger brothers laces, both in the beginning and once Pollux is dead. It genuinely breaks my heart and I cry every single time I watch it. 

I really do love this film, this is so much fun to watch and I can't believe I barely know anyone who's seen it. Then again I have like....what...4 friends? If that so it's not all that surprising. I really do recommend you watch this, though, even if it's just to watch the acting marvel that is two over actors playing each other. It's so magnificent, everyone enjoys what they're doing, they're all just having such a fucking ball that despite the absolutely huge plot hole in this, you enjoy it all the same. Highly recommend it.

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray 

Life

This sucked.

Director: Daniel Espinosa
Writers: Rhett Reese
                Paul Wernick

I have plenty of issues with this. It started off very promising, with the scientists looking at how life can grow and it looked beautiful and almost seemed like they were going to look at the idea of how life on another planet can possibly be beautiful. It looked like it could be smart like it could have some great characters that you want to see get out of this alive if anything went wrong. Turns out that's not what we get. We get a very rushed, predictable, boring rip-off of Alien with no character development and an audience hoping the threatening alien comes to Earth and wipes us all out because the human species fucking suck. Hard.

This is a very cut and paste story. Humans are in space looking for signs of life beyond Earth, humans discover proof and make this proof angry forcing it to go on a rampage. I really couldn't believe how predictable this was, even the ending which I guess was supposed to be a "twist" ending, it plays out like that so I guess that was the intention. Every single thing is just predictable from the very beginning and at this point, where technology and filmmaking has advanced so much from where it started, it's insulting to a film goer for your product to be both predictable and boring. Predictability is fine as long you have interesting characters or an interesting premise or something but...no.

I really don't remember who any of the characters were in this. I remember a Japanese guy who you know what's coming to him because he becomes a father while up in space. No spoilers but...you know what happens to him. I remember Jake Gyllenhaal being up there for ages because he has a hatred of the human species and what we do to each other, I don't blame him, to be honest. If I could escape everyone up in space I'd do it too. Then there's Ryan Reynolds, you know exactly what's going to happen to him because of the line Quote: "I miss my fuckin' dog." Again, no spoiler but considering he says that...you know what's going on. There was a British woman, can't remember her character's name so I'm not sure who she is, and the same for the Russian woman too. Impactful and memorable. Finally, there's Ariyon Bakare. He plays a man who is wheelchair bound on Earth and is pretty much the most responsible for this alien species (Calvin) becoming a dick in the name of self-preservation. I will say, however, it looks like the actors are trying some of the time they're on screen. Some of the time. The rest it just kinda looks like they're just waiting for this to be over so they can get paid.

Speaking of waiting for this to be over, that was a pretty good thing about this film. There was no waiting for it to be over. The film knows it's a paint by numbers boring film that's over pretty much as soon as it starts. It's like the third Jurassic Park movie in that sense. Just get people in there, have them encounter the danger, and end it. Nice and quick.

Another positive thing was the alien itself, Calvin. This thing is my absolute favourite thing in the entire movie. It's CGI...obviously, but the way they describe this creature. All muscle, all brain and all eyes. Very cool. The design is pretty good for what you get, it's very tentacle-y and in some scenes looks like an octopus and in others looks like he's got slugs for legs but, it's a pretty cool design. The way this thing kills is also pretty good. Kind of reminiscent of the chest burst scene in Alien but...not chest burst-y. In fact, you don't see the exact method this thing kills. It's just in and out fairly quickly, pretty graphically too but it's great. Before I forget, Calvin kills a rat. I didn't watch that part because I hate looking at animals that get killed on screen. I saw people's reaction to it and that wasn't pleasant. If you go see this and don't like looking at animals getting killed on screen for the purpose of demonstrating another creature's power.

That's it, this was crap but if you enjoy generic alien kills humans even though humans were dicks to the alien stories then there's a strong chance you'll enjoy this. If you enjoy just sitting back and not being challenged by what you're watching, you're gonna like this. If you want something to challenge you and give you a better experience then I wouldn't bother seeing it.

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying tickets to see the film and buy the DVD or Bluray when the time comes.

Donnie Darko

I already forgot a good majority of this and I finished watching it 10 minutes ago

Director: Richard Kelly
Writer: Richard Kelly

Bit of back story first. Back when I was an all out emo kid this film was so popular and people kept telling me to watch it and I must have seen it because I remember saying it was crap and pretentious and I remember people telling me that it was really cool and that I was smart and I'd get it but...I don't remember if I ever got it because I really don't remember having seen this before. I mean, I must have, more than once because I was quoting some things in it, like...really basic lines and I just...this thing leaves such a big yet small impact on me for some reason. I never understood how this drew in so many people, especially little emo kids, and I never understood why it was such a cultural phenomenon for people my age and I guess I'll never know considering I'll probably forget about it withing the hour. At least I'm writing about it now to at least prove to myself that I have definitely watched it now.

It's so strange for a film to do this to me, and don't get me wrong, I love artsy films that look kinda pretentious but aren't really. One of my favourites is 2001. I love that film but this one seems to be in that realm of pretentiousness where even it doesn't know what it's talking about. What I mostly got from this was a discussion of science vs belief vs fate. Interesting enough yeah but then they throw in talk of time travel and the end of the world which again sounds interesting in theory but then it throws in literal time travel and literal end of the world but it's not tied together all that well. There's a jet engine that comes crashing down and killing Donnie (Jake Gyllenhaal) but the engine came from a jet that his mother was on during the end of the world in the future so I just don't know what this film was doing.

Another weird thing in this was the cult that Patrick Swayze was running. Don't be coming at me saying it wasn't a cult because it was, in the sense that people look to this man for answers and he gives them just a basic "don't live in fear and embrace yourself, love yourself" which...is a good message and all but sometimes you need fear in your life. You need fear to spurn you on throughout your darkest times along with love and a lot of other human emotions.

Seth Rogan was also in this, I think he had about 4 lines. I really don't remember, even looking at my notes I really don't understand what I've written. It's not because my handwriting when I'm rushing is atrocious, but because I don't remember what I've written them about.

The final thing that sticks out in my mind is the imagery when Donnie sees Frank (James Duval). I don't remember why it was interesting but it's just...sticking out in my mind as one of the best parts of this film. I know that whenever it was on screen I just thought to myself, this is really cool, why can't other films have stuff like this in it. I vaguely remember looking at Gyllenhaal's face during his "visions" and it really reminded me of Alex (Malcolm Mcdowell) from A Clockwork Orange.

I'm sorry I couldn't do anything...proper with this but I honestly barely remember even watching this and I'm trying to write up what I remember as fast as I can. I had to pause watching Face Off for this because I knew I wouldn't remember shit when it came to writing this. I'm so sorry about how...bleh this is. If you enjoy this film or not, if you remember watching this thing or not let me know and try to educate me on it. It probably won't be much of a discussion because by that time I won't remember even watching this.  Alright, back to watching Face Off. Love ya.

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.

Ordinary World

Someone here is fucking with Perry.

Director: Lee Kirk

Writer: Lee Kirk

Who knew? Billie Joe Armstrong from Green Day can act. I'm almost proud. I mean that in the best possible way too, I honestly don't mean it in a sly way. He just always kinda seemed like the kind of guy who wouldn't really be all that into acting, always seemed more of a music guy y'know. Duh, dickhead, he's in a band obviously he'd be into music. I know what I mean. Moving on. Blessed that this guy can act, maybe he could make a career out of it, more of a career than he already has. I gotta stop waffling and talk about the film.

The first thing I noticed about this was that Selma Blair is in this. Who is she? Vivian Kensington from Legally Blonde. Here she plays Karen, a lawyer. Does that make this an unofficial spinoff/sequel to Legally Blonde? Probably not but it's just something cool I picked up on. Karen is Perry's (Billie Joe Armstrong) wife who seems to have forgotten his birthday. She didn't but he thinks she did and this spurs on the story. The couple have two children together. A baby whose name I'm totally unaware of considering his name doesn't come up in the film and in the subtitles, it's "boy" soooo? Did they name the baby? Or was he just such an insignificant part of the film that he didn't deserve one? Probably did him some good because these two should be banned from naming children after what they called their first child. Salome (sal-oh-may). Who the fuck that was a good name? I wrote jokes about that name in my notes, mostly around the fact that that fuckhole of a name is almost too close to Salmonella. Like I'm not ok with celebrity baby names and I think everyone has that one that bothers them to the point it's upsetting or hysterical. Not like I can talk, I wanna name my kids after obscure but fantastic Harry Potter characters but...they're gonna be named after great characters. This one is named after a bacteria. Gross. Don't call your kid stupid shit like that.

As I said in my introduction sentence, someone here is really fucking with Perry. And they are, I don't know if it's just him fucking with himself forgetting his own birthday, can't lie I do that...nearly every year. It could be his family just making up that his birthday is the 17th when it actually is the 16th and they're trying to buy themselves time. Or finally, it could be his horrible, self-centered, immature fucks of friends. I think I'm going to blame the friends because early on in the film Perry's brother Jake (Chris Messina) thinks that the birthday is tomorrow not today and it takes a hell of a long time for Perry's friends to turn up to the expensive hotel room. Personally, I think they all got the calls and had a meeting, discussing with each other that their old friend has got a hotel room and is willing to have a blowout party for his birthday. So, rather than say "you're an idiot, you've missed a day, you're 40 tomorrow" they're like "Woaaaaaahhhhhhh partaaaaaaayyyyyyyy". For one, you're all between 35-45 age range. You all suck if that's what you're doing at that age. I'm not saying don't have fun and don't party at that age but what I am saying is don't do it at the expense of your friend. You're old enough to know the value of money, you're old enough to be aware of human emotion and through that, you should be aware of when you're having fun at the expense of someone else's discomfort. You're a shitty friend if you're willing to risk your friend's happiness and stress levels if you're gonna do that. Then fuckin' Gary takes his birthday present. I mean, it was given to him but still...sucky thing to do, I'd be like "nah man, your birthday you keep 'em." Then again I barely enjoy when people buy me anything, that money could have gone to something more important. I dunno, guess I'm just old before my time. I guess that means I've got a hell of a midlife crisis coming at me but right now I'm the middle of a quarter life crisis so I don't know.

Speaking of the hotel, Rupert (Brian Baumgartner) is the concierge or, according to Wikipedia, he's the "no-nonsense owner" which...I don't get. Why would the owner be working behind the desk? Would he not be in a meeting or in his office dealing with the business side of things? I just have doubts as to whether the owner of a pretty fancy hotel in New York would have to deal with a triviality such as checking in guests. Back to Rupert. This guy's talents are totally wasted working in a hotel. Seriously. He should be a whisky critic or whatever alcohol critics are called. He talks to Perry about this $1000 bottle and it's kind of erotic. I've never been someone who liked the stuff but after hearing Rupert's little monologue, I'd probably fuck that bottle. 

Another fun little thing, in the background of one of the scenes, I think it was when Gary called Perry to see where he's at considering he's missing his own party, I noticed the music. Odd thing to pick up on right? What was the music? Figuring it out by SWMRS. Why does that matter? It wouldn't to anyone who doesn't notice shit like this or know who SWMRS are and even then it doesn' matter but I'm gonna bring it up because I didn't write enough notes aside from calling people dicks for what they're doing. SWMRS are a decent band, I've been into them since I was 16 and been to pretty much every Manchester show date they've had as a headline act. These guys are lovely as hell and their music's pretty good  ̶I̶'̶m̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶p̶l̶u̶g̶g̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶I̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶m̶i̶s̶e̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶g̶o̶ ̶c̶h̶e̶c̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶m̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶. I'm not bringing this up because it's a song I recognise, I'm bringing it up because there's an element of nepotism to it. Why's that? Because the drummer for SWMRS is Joey Amstrong, the eldest son of Billie Joe Armstrong. It's cool that your son's music got a spot in your film but it also adds fuel to an argument which is that your son is building his career off your back and while couldn't care less, people could kick off about it saying it's not fair and that if he was talented enough he'd do it without your influence or help. I the three years I've been to the gigs those guys are pretty talented and even though I've literally only ever spoken to two of them, they all seem so lovely and deserve the success they've had and what will most likely be coming to them. Was cool to listen to one of my favourite bands for a minute like. 

Final note. Towards the end Perry finds out that this trainwreck of a day I mean, his brother fires him due to a loophole in his father's will saying that if Perry doesn't pull his weight you can buy his ass out but if Jake doesn't pull his weight and Perry does, Perry can't do shit about it, regardless of whether he's the older brother. Fuck that guy. That's on top of almost going to jail over a trashed hotel room and only just making it to his daughter's talent show and having a sort-of-ex hitting on him, plus his father-in-law giving him shit over a play house. Perry finds out that none of this even happened on his birthday. This entire day happened because he got stressed because nobody remembered his 40th and he was rightfully upset about it. If it was me, in that moment he finds out it isn't his birthday, I'd probably want to throw myself off a bridge, I'd be that mortified. I really cannot deal with it so I think that just shows the strength of the character, that despite all this bullshit, it happened for literally no reason other than his own stupidity and he was able to deal with that. It was so good to see that strength in a character. 

Alright so, overall this was a very basic sort of predictable story but they did something good with it. This could have so easily been a crap and forgettable film and it wasn't. It was cute, charming, funny, well written and well shot. It's a shame it wasn't massively advertised, in England at least I'm not sure about America or anywhere else, but it's a shame because a lot of hard work and effort went into this and I'm not even sure it has the audience it deserves. I mean, I don't want it to have a sequel unless it's just Perry and Karen in court being told they can't name their son Scrooge McDuck due to copyright problems. That's something I'd watch and believe. Definitely go check this out, cute little film.

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.

Office Space

This will probably make you never want to work again.

Director: Mike Judge

Writer: Mike Judge

Right so, where do I begin? Do I start with the good or the bad or the sad? I think I'll start with the sad because it's only one point. Milton. There is a man called Milton (Stephen Root) and he just gets completely shit on because he's a bit weird. They continually make him move his desk around when he'd just gotten it the way he wants it, then they take his stapler which he seems to have an attachment to because it works better for him, then they realise he was fired 5 years ago but because of a glitch in payroll and the fact that nobody told him he was fired so they just take him off payroll still not telling him, then they make him move his desk back again, then they move him to the basement where he is then asked to take care of a cockroach problem which really isn't his job but he voiced his concern about that only to be cut short with "uh yeah if you could do that, that'd be great". He then goes upstairs to his boss' birthday cake cutting thing and passes along the cake but ends up not receiving a piece himself. Finally, he tries to sort out his pay as he keeps trying to get his pay sorted but he's just continually passed around by payroll to his boss Lumbergh (Gary Cole) and he also just wants his stapler back. After every little thing goes wrong in this poor guys life he says Quote: "I could burn the building down." I won't give away whether he does or not but just watching this poor man get shit on by literally everybody around him is both funny and heartbreaking.

Now for the bad, there's barely any Jenifer Aniston in this. I mean yeah she's here and looks great and acts great and swears at everyone where she works but she's pretty much just a love interest that gets brought in and you think the film will be about her and Pete (Ron Livingston) but it's not. It's a nice change of pace but...I would have accepted it more if it wasn't Jen. I would have liked to see more of her. Also, if I hear "T.P.S Reports" ever again, in my lifetime, I will probably kill myself. I can't imagine having to be whoever wrote the script, or how the actors felt doing shot after shot after shot of those initial scenes in which Peter's boss' come up to him and tell him that he didn't file his "T.P.S. Reports". I was fucking losing my mind over watching it, imagine how they felt having to say/hear it over and over. Christ. Speaking of bosses, Bill Lumbergh is one of those guys. He's patronising, he keeps saying Quote: "uuuuuh" and "yeah, uhhh"  in every single fucking sentence he says. Makes you wanna kick him in the fucking teeth. That's there is a combination of good acting and good writing to make a truly irritating character. I swear the amount of times I wrote "fuck Lumbergh" in my notes is amazing. Actually, I have a list of people who can go fuck themselves in this film, it goes as follows.

1. Nina. I hate her voice.
2. Bill Lumbergh. Fuck him too.
3. The Bob's. Fuck both these guys.
4. Every other boss Peter has. Sick of those guys too.
5. The printer. Not a person but it can go fuck itself.
6. Stan. Sort your own fucking flair out then fuck yourself with it.
7. Drew. Who the fuck does this kid think he is. Fucking 30+ pieces of flair? Go fuck yourself drew. 

Finally we're at the good stuff. So I've complained a lot about some of the key things in this but this truly is a funny film. Just watching these characters get tortured and it's not for any personal gain, it's their job. They pretty much work in a small cubicle and get tortured by life. I kinda don't know who has it worse in all honesty. Michael Bolton (David Herman) and Samir (Ajay Naidu) or Peter. 

Peter is having a midlife crisis. It's hilarious to see him give up. Yet he excels at work because of this, regardless of the fact he starts not showing up to work. It's honestly kind of amazing, he gets a promotion because he's a "straight shooter" yet his friends who consistently come to work and get the piss taken out of them by a printer get fired. Why has Peter given up? He heard T.P.S. Reports one too many times and then his therapist dies in front of him during a hypnosis session. You completely relate to the poor guy's situation, though. I mean his life is just terrible. It's hilarious to watch too. I mean it's like watching a clown get beaten in the street. You laugh because his nose is making that funny beeping sound every time the attacker jumps on his head but you're in amazement as to how badly this guys life has gone to get him into his current situation. 

Finally, the printer get's beaten up. It's a short scene and I'm pretty sure Family Guy used it in the I dream of Jesus episode. It's a great scene. It's funny and the damn thing gets it's well-deserved beating. I think everything in this film gets its rightful comeuppance which is always great to see. Peter doesn't for what he does but...that's just how films go really. He does get a job he's happy in instead which is a lot better than what he should have gotten and everything turns out pretty great. 

Anyway I'm sorry this is fairly short, it's a good film and I tend to write more when something is just terrible or fascinating enough for me to pick up on more things to talk about. You should watch this film. To watch Milton's break down or Peters, you should watch this film. I promise you'll get at least one laugh out of it. 

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's fine, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support it's creators by buying the DVD or Bluray. 

What's to come from Disney?

Am I ever gonna leave Disney alone? Probably not.

Alright so, I know I said in my last post where I was discussing Disney and how the fact that putting in an "openly gay" character who is "exploring his sexuality" was pretty much just an unnecessary marketing ploy and was also just kinda shoved in to put in "representation for the gay community". Honestly, it's a little out of place in revolution-era France but whatever, I'm moving on from that. Still, the best of the remakes though the more I think about it, it goes down in my estimations. But now that this is over, we're all looking toward the future of Disney remakes because...they know they're definitely gonna cash in on this. So what's to come from Disney in the future? I've done a bit of research and here's what I've found. I'm going to give the name of the film, a brief description of what I've found about it and my opinion on them. Hopefully, I'll be able to keep it short and I'll try and not let my emotions run the show and ramble on.

Alrighty, here we go.

• Genies. This is apparently an idea being thrown around, with no cast, director or even a release date as of right now but from what I can gather, this is going to be a prequel/origin story of the Genie and how he came to be in the lamp. This is obviously going to be so hard to do because the reason everybody loved the Genie in Aladdin was because of the late Robin Williams energy, charisma, and pure comedic talent. I've seen posts about how they would cast the Genie or whether or not they should even do an Aladdin remake and I understand their concerns but, think about it this way. Robin is gone but we'll always have his stand up and his films. If you're going to be upset by the casting choice for the live action version of the Genie then don't watch the movie. Disney are remaking their classics for a new generation but that doesn't erase the original. Go and watch that rather than protest it. I'm sure that whoever is cast for this will do their best to respect the character that Willams brought to life and will do their best to honour it while also making this iteration their own. 
• Aladdin. Speaking of the Genie then it's only right he appear in this remake too. Guy Ritchie, is directing at this time but that could change in the future, I'm not sure. Hollywood is a fickle place. And before you google "Was Guy Ritchie married to Madonna" yes. Yes, he was. I just saved you some time. Now I think they could do this, of course, there are still the concerns with the casting of the Genie and I've heard there is going to be a very diverse cast so hopefully, people won't be having a shit fit over whitewashing. I mean the original cast was white people drawn as Arabian people with one of them taking inspiration from Tom Cruise but...that's not white-washing in these people's eyes. This could be a good film for the marketing team because they could set up a "controversy" again to ensure butts get in seats. Watch this space.
• Dumbo. Tim Burton is set to direct this little classic with a mix of CG and live-action which I hope looks right. I really do. There's no set release date right now but I think when I first heard about this, I think the article said 2018. Don't quote me on that, I can't find that exact article. Like I said, I hope this looks right. Tim Burton is a very hit or miss director in terms of his style. Don't get me wrong, I love his style but in the places you think it'd look good, it doesn't *cough cough Alice in Wonderland cough cough*. I think that this is where he could definitely shine, especially in that pink elephant's scene. I swear if that scene isn't in this and doesn't look creepy and awesome. I'm gonna be so done with any Disney remake. That was easily the best scene in the original and despite everyone saying it scared them as a kid, they still went back to it and now as adults, they still think it's a bit freaky but it looks fucking cool. I'm excited for this but literally just to see what he does with this. Love ya Tim, don't let me down.
• The Lion King. The success of The Jungle Book did this guys, you wanted live-action animals and now you're getting it. This one doesn't have a release date yet but what I do know is that Jon Favreau of Iron Man producing fame is set to direct. James Earl Jones (Mufasa) is going to be back with Donald Glover (Simba) which I'm over the fucking moon about. No Matthew Broderick. This character isn't going to sound bored out of his head while he's talking. Excited doesn't cover it. 
• The Little Mermaid. This is already going to be production hell considering it's had three actresses attached and all three have dropped out, I've not seen anything about a director or producer or a release date or anything. All the people at Disney have is the story, as far as I'm aware. Considering this could be a production hell of a project, it could go two ways. It could be terrible and all the problems are on screen like with The Good Dinosaur (which was a production hell) or it could be like Inside Out (another production hell) which was able to get past all its problems and bring out something incredible. I hope for Disney's sake it goes well.
• Cruella. Another classic villains origin story. This is apparently going to be similar to Maleficent in the sense that it could bring a more human side to the wannabe puppy killer which, I almost don't want to see. Emma Stone, hot off the success of La La Land is set to play the fur-obsessed villain which, I suppose isn't a bad choice but we'll just see how it goes. Alex Timber is set to direct and I've heard there is a 2018 release date. I hope this doesn't bring a more human side to her because I always saw her as that crazy kid who'd burn ants. I know Disney has a "family friendly" image but...going darker can't hurt right? Don't give her a broken heart, make her a little crazy and as time goes on, let it get gradually worse. 
• The Sword in the Stone. The story of an orphaned boy who learns about magic with his wizard mentor. The orphan? A young King Arthur. The wizard? Merlin. Who's attached to this? Game Of Thrones writer/producer Bryan Cogman. How cool does that sound? Fucking awesome. That's all the information I need to get hyped over this film. 
• Winnie The Pooh. The story apparently involves Christopher Robin returning to his friends in the Hundred-Acre Wood as an adult. I've not seen anything about a director or cast or anything yet but my imagination is running wild with the possibilities. How is Pooh Bear going to react to his best friend growing up? There's a nice little quiet moment in the end of the original 1966 animated where Christopher Robin talks to Pooh Bear about the inevitability of him growing up and living his life without Pooh Bear. It's such a sad little talk but it really fits in with the tone of the film and this is already such an interesting premise for a film that I just hope they can pull it off.  
• Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. A remake of the original story with no cast, director or release date. It could suck, it could be good, are they going to get a real 14-year-old to play the 14-year-old character? Probably not. Are they going to make her a strong independent woman that actually kinda backfires like with Cinderella? Probably. 
• Rose Red. Ever heard of Rose Red? No? Go back to the Grimm fairy tales and you'll find she was the sister of Snow White. She's getting her own spinoff movie where she teams up with the dwarfs to break the spell put onto Snow after she bites the apple. Interesting idea, let's just hope that for this to work they don't try to make Snow White an independent woman like Cinderella. 
• Peter Pan. David Lowry, the director of the live-action Pete's Dragon is now set to direct this live-action adaptation of the 1953 animated film. No cast or release date right now but you know that you can't break the streak of gorgeous guys who have played the boy who will never grow up. Tinkerbell will also be getting her own spinoff. Why isn't that another bullet point? Because, there isn't enough information, opinion or emotion to make it more than one sentence.
• The Jungle Book 2. Jon Favreau is apparently returning to direct this and there is no cast or release date to speak of but there is an opinion. Let's face facts, Disney sequels suck. Disney live-action remakes have sucked so far. Disney sequels and remakes made money. What's the next logical thing to do? Make a live-action sequel obviously! God, I just...I just don't want to bother if the story to the sequel is similar to the animated sequel. Let's just hope that Christopher Walken returns because he was the best thing about that movie.
• Maleficent 2. Angelina Jolie, no director, no release date, no interest from me. Why is this being made? The first one made money and rather than leave a story where it was left, all nicely wrapped up and put away carefully, you gotta drag it back out and mess with it more. What could even be added to this story? Is she going to protect Aurora/Briar Rose's baby from a curse from another evil witch/fairy whatever the hell she is? It really wouldn't surprise me at all. At least with The Jungle Book there are actual books to take ideas from. This one was a fabricated humanisation of a classically evil villain and there is nowhere else they can take this.
• Pinocchio. This shit scary animated kids film is also getting the live-action treatment with a story loosely based on that of the original animated film. Will it take darker aspects from the original story too? Maybe, I don't know, I kinda hope so because...kids films can always be darker and films these days always need that PG-13 rating. 
• James and the giant peach. The Roald Dahl classic book got a semi-live-action film back in 1996 and it was...mediocre at best. The book is a hell of a lot better. Now Disney is talking about remaking the film as, I'm guessing, a live-action/CGI movie which could be decent. I don't know.
• Chip 'n Dale. A chipmunks movie that hopefully won't become a horrible franchise? If it does well then it could be. This will be based on the TV series which ran from 1989 to 1990, and there isn't much information on this right now but apparently it's already in it's production so...fingers crossed this will be a good film.
• Chernabog. The final and funniest of them all (that I'm aware of). Who is Chernabog? He was a demon (the Devil) who was featured in an 11-minute segment called A Night On Bald Mountain from the masterpiece that is Fantasia. He is apparently going to get the same treatment Maleficent got and he will be given a more humanised backstory. Why Chernabog though? Who even really watched Fantasia in my age range or younger? Not a lot. The only reason I ever watched it was that my parents had it on VCR and I bugged them until I got to watch it. Even they found it boring but I loved it so they watched it with me whenever I wanted to put it on. Whenever I've talked about Fantasia with people in my age group, literally none of them has watched it and I highly doubt that kids have seen this too. So why do it? I'm not sure but I do think it would interesting to see. Maybe it could be similar to Fantasia in the sense of it being a silent film aside from classical music and deals with religion. It could be gorgeously animated and depending on the amount of people who see it, it could lead to another Fantasia movie. Disney have done a film dealing with religion before and the animation was just gorgeous, the music gave me goosebumps. Hunchback Of Notre Dame is a gorgeous film with religious themes and I hope that this is the route they take but...with the information I've been given about giving him a more human backstory? I almost don't want to see this come to light. 
• Mulan. A more serious take on the boring girl with no personality who saved China. How is it more serious? It's apparently not a musical and Buzzfeed wrote an article complaining about that. You thought it might be due to the fact that they want to do this seriously with better character development? Of course not, you want the exact same thing coming at you but live-action with no change what so ever. All you care about is the I'll make a man out of you number. This film is already in production with Niki Caro apparently on board directing and a release date for 2018.
• Mary Poppins returns. Not a remake, but a sequel to the 1964 film and I can already feel the CGI burning into my retinas. Emily Blunt is apparently going to take on the role of the magical nanny with Lin-Manuel Miranda from Hamilton is set to star alongside her. The film is set to be released Christmas Day 2018. Merry Christmas guys.

So that's all the films I've heard about, all 20 of them. And out of those 20, only 4 of them really grab my interest and I just can't wait for all of these to come out so I can write about them. I really do love Disney but I genuinely feel like they're dying and their only hope is to cash in on nostalgia and remake their classics. I hope they sort their shit soon and bring out some original content because I'd honestly hate to see this company pander to the masses and go under because people get bored of nothing original.

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about the films listed. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like the idea of the films listed then go and support its creators by buying tickets to see the films in cinemas or the DVD or Bluray when they're available for home release.

Clue

Pick an ending.

Director: Jonathan Lynn

Writers: John Landis (Story)

                Jonathan Lynn (Story & Screenplay)

                Anthony E.Pratt (Board game - uncredited)

Why is this so underrated? Like really, this is such a painfully underrated film, and I just don't get it. Is it because it came out in 1985 and people today are only concerned with Marvel and DC movies? Not really because people love a lot of films from that year, is it because it's not got a star-studded cast? Not really, it's got Tim Curry and Christopher Lloyd in it, is it because it's not funny? Hell no, this one of the funniest things I've ever seen. If anyone could tell me why it's not loved as much please let me know, I'm genuinely so confused.

So, as you might guess, this is based on the board game Cluedo where players solve a murder based on clues they come across. They have to work out how the victim was killed, where, and with what. It's a pretty good game and has various versions out there and when I was a kid I had The Simpsons version. Lost all the pieces. Still devastated about it. Moving on. The film follows this formula quite well but also adds a motive for murder. Blackmail. There's also a second motive, not dissimilar to Hot Fuzz where there is a motive but a more reasonable underlying reason for the murders. Here, the more reasonable...reason was Communism. But it turns out Communism and the blackmailer just wants his informants dead. Pretty smart if you think about it. I'm also not naming the blackmailer/murderer(s) as...this is a multiple choice movie. There are three endings and you get to pretty much chose your murderer and outcome of the film. Maybe that's why this is underrated, people these days are more passive than active when watching a film and would rather have their ending spoon-fed to them. I don't know. 

This is one of my favourite films ever by the way, it was my first introduction to Tim Curry and he is such an inspiration to me in performance or in general life. His acting style is just to go all out and fuck haters. Or at least that's how it comes across to me and you definitely see it here. Even in scenes where he's in the background, the guys face just jumps out to you. That sounds a little scarier than what it should be but it's not, it's a really good thing in fact because even though his face does jump right out at you, he doesn't steal scenes. Tim plays the Butler, Wadsworth, by the way, I'm aware I didn't mention that but the character makes you well aware of the fact he's a butler by...kind of announcing it whenever it's necessary to remind everyone. It's actually quite funny every time he does it.

Mr Green (Michael McKean) plays a gay man working in Washington and that's the reason he's getting blackmailed. He's also the punching bag and the guy who gets the blame leading to a catchphrase of Quote: "I didn't do it." Each time it's said the poor guy just gets more and more exasperated and it turns out, during all three of the endings, he didn't do anything. Which is nice you know. Thinking about it, he is the most innocent of all the people in this film and almost renders him useless until the end where he is used as a dummy to recap the entire film's murders and also, plays a very key part in one of the endings. I won't say how or anything, you gotta look at that for yourself. 

The rest of the cast do...a pretty good job in their respective parts. Nothing really stands out much aside from Christopher Lloyd as Professor Plum, the doctor who did what you shouldn't with your patients. I mean, that's a kinda vague way of describing it but you know what it is without even saying it explicitly. I really am trying hard to think of anything that stood out about these people but...they're all just so good that I can't think of anything.

The writing, however, is some of the best I've seen. Unlike in The Lego Batman Movie where people have claimed that there's a joke in almost every line and it's laugh a minute where it isn't, Clue, definitely is a laugh a minute script. There are jokes in more or less every line, whether it's visual or verbal, there are jokes. Whether it's an obvious quip such as Quote: Mrs Peacock (Eileen Brennan): "Uh, is there a little girls room in the hall?"  Yvette (Coleen Camp): "Oiu Oiu madame." Mrs Peacock: "No, I just want to powder my nose." or something subtle such as Quote: Wadsworth: "Professor Plum, you were once a professor of psychiatry at specialising in helping paranoid and homicidal lunatics suffering from delusions of grandeur."   Professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd): "Yes, but now I work for the United Nations."   Wadsworth: "So your work has not changed."

Both these types of humour absolutely kill me during this entire thing.

Now then, we all know I can't not find a problem with something so...here's the problem with this movie. The scene where the lights go out and Mr Boddy is shot. What's the problem with that? He falls forward onto his face yet the bullet would have come from his front but...there's a bullet hole in the wall in front of him? I know you're probably thinking "the murderer could have gone behind him and shot him" but Plum says that someone starts wrestling him for the gun and it goes off. Plum was in the middle of the room. If you're shot from the front you fall backwards and a bullet hole in the wall would be behind you yes? Simple as. 

Like I said before this is one of my favourite films and in my opinion, it's so painfully underrated that you really should take a look at it. It's on Netflix, it's on DVD, it's online. You got not excuse to not see this thing. Unless you don't feel like it and that's fine, I can't force you but...you really should look at it. It's a good murder mystery if nothing else.

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray. 

Disney and The Gay Agenda - Part 2

DON'T READ IF YA DON'T WANT SPOILERS

Alright so, you remember how a few weeks ago people were kicking off about LeFou, the absolute main icon of Disney's wholesome values that cannot ever be touched, was going to be a gay character? Of course you do. Do you remember my last post about this where I was saying that it doesn't even matter unless it damages the film itself? No? Go read it then come back here.

https://somegirltalksaboutmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/disney-gay-agenda.html
(Also go look at my review for the film https://somegirltalksaboutmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/beauty-beast-2017.html )

You read it? Good, we can continue. You wanna know how changing the very core of Disney from a straight man to a gay man went? It barely fucking did anything. LeFou (Josh Gad) showed the same blatant signs of attraction that the cartoon did but in a different and very slightly more obvious way. There were scenes in which LeFou quite literally copied Gaston (Luke Evans) and it's in a way cute, in another way funny and in another kinda creepy. But you know what those lists say; if you want your crush to notice you, copy some of the little things they do to get their attention. This, of course, didn't work for poor little LeFou, then he sticks up for Gaston in the bar when Maurice (Kevin Klein) accuses him of attempted murder. LeFou then breaks into well-known song Gaston and yes, that is the name of the song, I looked it up on about 4 different sites. During this song, LeFou shows his affection toward Gaston and this is the biggest clue that this character is probably in the closet, and this is probably the start of the whole "LEFOU IS GAY LIGHT THE PITCHFORKS" thing. The rest of his scenes essentially follow the original story.

However, during the fight scene at the end, he gets flattened by a table, it's not the lovely dog/footstool table, it's just a coffee table that comes out for the fight. He pleads Gaston for help but, Gaston being the dick he always was, leaves him in pursuit of the Beast. Later during the fight, Mrs Potts sees Mr Potts, a man I never knew existed in the original movie. I guess he had to exist in some way for Chip to be born but, it's just weird to see him. Back to the point, though. Mrs Potts sees her estranged husband and falls, as she's falling, you almost think she's going to smash into pieces on the floor, but you see her get caught. Who catches her? Your favourite french fool, LeFou. Mrs Potts asks why he caught her and isn't he on the other side? He replies that he and Gaston are going through a rough patch like someone would say if they're in a fight with their partner. Mrs Potts then goes on to say something along the lines of either "You don't need him love" or  "you can do better love" or maybe both, it's been 2 days since I watched it and I can't remember every line spoken. Sue me. Also, during this fight scene, Madame Garderobe (Audra McDonald) clothes three men, I'm not even joking she showers them in clothes and they come out fully done up, makeup and wigs and gorgeous dresses. Two of these men scream in terror and run out but one of them just smiles and looks so happy and just walks away. It's a cute moment and at the time it looks like a silly throwaway joke or something but it goes somewhere.

Now then, you'll notice there's nothing particularly gay about any of this. I've described a pretty camp character and crossdresser. That can't be it, right? There was such a build-up, where's the butt plugs? The anal beads? The dildo-headed, leather gimp suits? Where's even the tiniest gay moment? You wanna know where it is? Right at the very end and lasts less than a second. Literally. After everyone gets returned to their human form there's the final reprise of Tale as old as time and everyone is having fun in the ballroom dancing, and loving life. There's a shot of LeFou dancing with a young woman and it cuts away to someone else dancing or Emma Thompson singing. Again I'm not sure, I barely remember the details shot by shot. It then cuts back to LeFou dancing with this woman, he then pushes her aside and starts dancing with the man from earlier who was happy in the dress. There's your gay moment guys. LeFou dances with a guy. We're off to hell guys, we watched the gayest thing two men can do together. Dance.

I'm not even joking, that was the "exclusively gay moment". So...did it matter? No. Why was there such a hype over it to the point where I was expecting anal beads and dildo-headed gimp suits? Personally, I think the creators knew that controversy sells and that they didn't have enough confidence in their product. This was simply a marketing ploy and a cheap one at that. I can't lie, I'm hurt by this. Why couldn't the creators go balls to the wall and have him actually explore his sexuality rather than be overly affectionate toward Gaston. Seeing a character just explore who they are would be nice at least but this whole thing just seemed like such a last minute thing that you wonder what even triggered the need to put it in.

Personally, I think it was the desperate need for representation of everyone that some people have these days. People want more women, gay people, trans people and ethnic people represented in film, and that's understandable, but why put these characters in these films just for the sake of representation? If you're just throwing these characters in without thought, for a controversy storm to start up and bring in an audience that...considering that this is A) a Disney product B) a remake of a perfect piece of film and C) a big thing because of the cast they managed to get, there really is no need to create such a storm. This really does show the confidence the makers had in this film. They knew that no matter what, this was going to be a bad film compared to this first one and they had to do whatever they could to get butts into seats. Like I said, this is an iconic property and the film would have been the exact same without it.

I really don't know what else to say about it, there was no need to put in an "exclusively gay moment" that didn't even exist. I'm offended because they had a great shot at a character exploring their sexuality to normalise it for kids and they bitched out of it. It would have been nice to have this little side plot with LeFou rather than filling our time with 4 pointless songs that stopped the film or the unnecessary exposition with Belle's mother dying of plague (don't come at me, you had a spoiler warning). This could have at least made the film it's own thing. In that respect, the Cinderella remake was better because at least it tried to be its own thing. It made the product worse in doing so but at least they tried. With this? It's a shot for shot remake of the cartoon with more exposition that just stops the film. That doesn't change my opinion on it, I do still like the film, I went in with low expectations and they were met, that's all I asked for with this remake.

I know that this is all over the place and honestly...this whole thing was kind of all over the place, there was no need for a petition to be made before anybody saw it. There was no need for anyone to ban this from their theatre before they even saw it. There was no need to cause a media storm over nothing. I hope someone from Disney or someone in film at least, sees this and the many other peoples complaints about there not being a gay moment and I hope they take it on board and think about what they're going to do and why they're going to do it. I'm so sick of thing just being shoehorned into films just for the sake of advertisement. Do it because the story needs it or you feel it's something that needs to be talked about. All it says about you is that you're not confident in your work if you have to either shoehorn something in *cough cough female ghostbusters* or just flat out lie to your audience.

I'm pissy about this, peace out and have a good day guys.

Beauty & The Beast (2017)

If it's not Baroque, don't fix it - Cogsworth (1991)

Director: Bill Condon
Writers: Stephen Chbosky 
                Evan Spiliotopoulos


To start off, I kinda didn't want to even watch this...well actually I was in two minds as to whether I wanted to or not because growing up, Beauty & The Beast was one of my absolute favourite films. I identified with Belle way more than I did any other princess because Belle was a dedicated reader and I was too at the time. Anytime I felt like I was starting to lose interest in reading I'd end up watching it and I'd be inspired.

Fast forward to somewhere in 2016 and I find a cast list for a live-action version of one of my favourite films and the cast looked damn good, Emma Watson as Belle? Ideal casting. I was excited and worried at the same time, I'd seen the live-action Cinderella and Jungle Book and in updating these films they, in some ways, made them worse. They were good don't get me wrong...one more than the other but that's a different conversation. The point is, I'd seen how these had gone down and my hopes for Beauty & The Beast were still high but...I was ready to be disappointed.

Then came the trailers, they mimicked the original trailer which of course was a good idea. Bring in the older crowd by showing them what they remember from the original, and bringing in the newer crowd that probably have never seen a 2D animated feature before, and of course with the title Beauty & The Beast...first full-length animated feature film to be nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards plus the nostalgia factor PLUS they're also pulling in the Harry Potter crowd because Hermione Granger is in this. Goldmine really, can't see why they didn't do it sooner. So I saw that trailer and thought, y'know what, this looks pretty good, and obviously the film itself would have changes, but this is a good start. Then came the trailers with Emma singing, the reveal of The Beast, melding some of the original scenes with some new scenes and I just lost more and more faith in this.

Thinking about it really, this could be the first live-action film to be nominated for best animated picture, what with the amount of CG in it. The CGI looks...very CGI. I mean it's not the worst but...I'm just not a big fan of CGI, I've seen it too much and it's gotten to the point where whenever I see it, it automatically takes me out of what I'm watching because I know what I'm seeing isn't really there. If it was blended better or there were more practical effects used like...for example hairy beast makeup for Dan Stevens. Kind of like what they did for Jim Carrey in The Grinch but not as heavy y'know? And then use CG in places where it's needed. I honestly don't understand why CGI gets used for almost everything. It seems lazy and I don't understand why there isn't all that much effort put into it. Again, conversation for another day. Although I will say, the Be Our Guest number looks so beautiful I got goosebumps, this is probably the one place I'll say this version did it better than the original.

So the first thing I noticed about this was that the colour blue was...everywhere. Which is an odd thing to pick up on its own but if you think back to the animated film, the only two people to wear that colour is Belle and The Beast (the prince's name is Adam by the way, not sure why that's such a hidden thing, just a quick Google search away). The reason for this was to distinguish these characters from the rest of the cast. The colour blue is to make a connection between the two "outsider" characters making it easier for us to see them together. I feel like here, it's a featured colour because it was somebodies favourite. Can't blame them, blue is a gorgeous colour and it also happens to be mine so...But yeah, I'm not entirely sure why this even bothers me because it really shouldn't, it's an artistic choice and it works but...nostalgic bias wins I guess.

The story, for the most part, is pretty good. I mean, they follow the original tale in some places, with Maurice (Kevin Kline) going to the market and Belle (Emma Watson) asking him to bring her a rose. In other places. the film follows the animated film almost perfectly and in other places the story just fucking stops for some unnecessary exposition about Belle's and The Beasts mothers, like...who needs to know that? Film is a visual medium, y'know, show don't tell. If we get the characters emotions across in this part of their lives and enough exposition about getting to this point in the story is given then, who even cares? I always just assumed that Belle's mother was banished just like the rest of the Disney mothers but...nope, you find out what happened to her in a completely bullshit way.

The music? Mostly pretty good, almost everyone here does a good job at what they're doing, Emma sounds like she could have needed a couple more sessions with a vocal coach but she does well enough. Not like I'm one to talk about someone's singing voice when I sound like an Elephant Seal getting sodomised and mutilated at the same time but...take it or leave it like. There were songs in this that weren't in the original such as Forever More which is a lovely enough song and would be great in a broadway play but seems fairly out of place here for some reason. I mean it's beautifully shot and genuinely moved me but I just felt like the film had a more...powerful moment in place of the song. In fact, about 3 songs could have been cut from this and put into a broadway adaptation and it would have been better there. I will say again, the Be Our Guest section was so fucking good, I was dreading it but they put all of their effort and more into that number and fuck it pays off. However, there are lyrics changed but that's to better suit the story rather than change the song. All that's changed is from "10 years we've been rusting" to "Too long we've been rusting" and honestly, considering all I do is bitch, this was actually something I cannot bitch about.

So how did I feel about this? Well, if I had to give it a number out of 10, I'd give it a 5/10. That's nothing to do with the film being bad or anything because it's not. It's actually the best live-action Disney remake. I mean I'd give Cinderella a 1/10 and the Jungle Book a 3/10 but...this was easily the best one and it's the only one where I would consider buying it and letting my (soon-to-be-niece/Goddaughter even though I'm not even related but I've known my bestie for so long and we have gone through so much together that...we've adopted each other at this point) best friends kid watch it and enjoy it with her rather than just putting on a kids film that's crap but harmless because she likes it. Hell, I even encourage you guys to go out and see it. Go on, off ya go. Get your tickets booked. You're still reading this, stop it.
.......
Ohhh I know why you're still reading, you know about that shit about LeFou and my last post regarding Disney and their gay agenda. Well, you wanna know what that was all about? Fucking nothing. There was so much fucking build up for something so tiny and honestly, I might write about it but it's gonna take a couple days to get my thoughts together on it and I really don't want to mess up while talking about it. That could mean going to see the film again but whatever y'know, I'd pay to see this again and so should you if you like it. Now go, leave me be and watch this movie, or even the original, or read another of my posts, or do whatever you like really because I can't control shit....

Ok I promise I'm done this time.  ̶G̶o̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶f̶i̶l̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶o̶

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then please go and support its creators by buying the books, buying a ticket to see the film and when the time comes, buy the DVD or Bluray.

Son Of The Mask

Which of you fucks gave this a 15% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes?

Director: Lawrence Guterman

Writer: Lance Khazei

Holy hell do I feel abused. I'm not even exaggerating, I genuinely feel assaulted and abused. The imagery in this is horrific, the writing is terrible and nobody knows how the hell to back away from the fucking wide angle lens half the time. There's a line from Tim Avery's (Jamie Kennedy) boss, Daniel Moss (Steven Wright), where he's talking about the mask character he saw at the previous night's Halloween party, he says Quote: "This could be a franchise character" and after the 15 - 20 minutes of...mildly freaky shit I'm thinking no...you're trying but no, that's not happening. If there was a way I could get across how exasperated I am with this film I would 100% write it out a thousand times in place of what I'm about to write. But I can't. Words to describe how I feel about this do not exist. Fuck. Let's just get into it.

First of all, the majority of my notes for this were "This needs to stop." "Fuck off." "Stop it." "What the fuck?" and "Why." To start off this assault on your senses we see Loki (Alan Cumming) detach Dr Neuman's (Ben Stein) face and floats it into a museum display. This is only a small insight into what will later come. We then get Tim's imagination into what having a baby is like, hundreds of little vampires shooting out of his wife while she files her nails while doctors catch them like American footballs. I have no idea how I even feel about this, is it misogynistic? Are they implying he has no idea how birth works? All I know is I was a little scared.

Then there's a scene where, after Tim puts on the mask and goes to his work's Halloween party. He puts the mask on and the car quite literally becomes electrified with all kinds of green smoke coming off of it. He stretches his leg all the way up to the front door where there's a guard waiting for him and he, of course, asks for his ID. Mask-Tim decides to fuck around for a little bit and not be funny, until a good 2 minutes of screen time later so that's what? 10 minutes movie time? He pulls out an ID of Mask-Tim, not normal Tim, Mask-Tim with his freaky, fake, plastic MacDonald's happy meal toy face on it....And he gets let in...Yeah. So I'm assuming the doorman loses his job after that and we then move onto Mask-Tim eyeballing some girl his friend fancies but it's not like in a normal cartoon where the eyes comedically stretch out and it's just the whites of the eyes you see along with the iris and pupil. Oh no. This fucker goes the extra mile and adds the veins in for detail that all cartoons lack.

We're then assaulted more by a musical number that assaults your vision by Mask-Tim gyrating in wide angle lens, assaults your hearing by performing I Love You Baby in 5 different genres of music, all terribly, and it manages to assault your sense of safety by cleverly having the wide angle lens so wide that you don't even need to see this in 3D to feel like you're gonna get eaten by Jamie Kennedy. You just feel like he's about to come out of the screen and just swallow you whole like Monstro in Pinocchio. It also manages to insult both choreographers and dancers. How? Because the wide angle is so wide and Jamie Kennedy's botched plastic surgery face is filling the screen, you cannot see the dancers behind him. Every so often they get a few seconds but that's it. Why put so much effort into choreographing all of this and getting talented dancers to not showcase their work. Might as well not even put them in the credits at all. I wouldn't even be so bothered if it even felt short, like if it only felt around a minute or two long. It doesn't. It feels like it's taken up a good 20 minutes of your time. That's 20 minutes of my life I could have been working out, eating healthier, working on my skills as a writer or a performer but no. This one scene alone drained most of my energy.

Once that part of the assault is over he goes home wearing the mask and gets his wife pregnant. You see how the mask gets her pregnant too, and they don't show a sex scene, they show sperm fighting to get to the egg with some of the scariest fucking animation I have ever seen. Like...I think it's meant to be similar to watching the creation of your worst nightmare and if that's what the animators were going for then...ya did good guys. Ya did good. Honestly, words escape me to even describe the horror that is that scene. The next day Tim's wife Tonya (Taylor Howard) feels Quote: "Kinda funky" and logically, she thinks she's pregnant. I mean, that's a rational way of thinking, I feel kinda funky after watching this, so...did this film get me pregnant? I seriously hope not. But anyway, it turns out that her feeling kinda funky means she is pregnant and while she's in the doctor's office she feels sick so asks for a trashcan. Understandable if she felt she couldn't make it to the bathroom but I don't think that would matter considering she vomits bubbles. I have no way of commenting on that other than the doctor doesn't freak out and get her locked up for testing even though he admits it's not a normal thing to do. All I can say is that these two need a better doctor. Throughout her pregnancy, Tonya eats Silly String which I'm pretty sure contains a lot of chemicals that aren't safe for consumption, but she eats it on a cracker so I guess that's just fucking fine. They then go to a baby scene where the baby performs Cuban Pete for a few seconds along with Freak Out and 1) she doesn't even feel it. 2) She's not even looking at the screen at her baby. 3) Realistically she'd be dead or dying if that happened to her. I just...

Once all that's done with the worst of this...abomination of cinema are the fight scenes between the baby and the dog and the baby trying to make Tim insane because he saw that classic Warner Brothers cartoon with the frog singing vaudeville and thinks that that's where Tim belongs because it'll be fun to mess with him and explanations are only for the people who pay attention to films. The animation is scary. I can't lie. I won't lie. The animation on the baby looks cheap and like they had superimposed a man's face onto a CGI babies body and tried to make it look younger. The dog looks like he had a bit more of a budget but that doesn't help when apparently the animators know what Satan's pooch looks like and decided to bring his likeness to the big screen. Yeah, this thing is fucking scary. There's a scene where he's getting dragged through the kitchen or something I wasn't paying much attention to the surroundings considering I was pretty scared. As I said, though, the dogs getting dragged backwards and his eyes leave their sockets leaving black holes in their place. Have the eyes shoot out, by all means, that's what cartoons do but don't make the eyes leave their sockets. The eyes are the most expressive part of the face, once you take those away the face becomes mostly expressionless and any expression that is conveyed may come across as something else. I don't know what it came across as here, I was too busy pissing myself in fear.

There's even a scene where Tim is sick of having this thing torment him so he puts it in its car seat and gets in the car. He says to the baby Quote: "First, I'm gonna take you to a paediatrician, then I'm taking you to an exorcist." THEN THE BABY SPINS  HIS HEAD AND VOMITS ILLUMINOUS GREEN SHIT!! WHAT KID IS EVEN GOING TO GET THAT REFERENCE?! Fuck me. The worst part about this bit? You hear bones cracking as this....thing's head is spinning. And it does it slower than in The Exorcist. At least in that Regan just spins and voms. Here no, they want to traumatise your kid, they do it slowly and you even see a slight struggle in this thing moving its head at first and I'm honestly just sitting here thinking...this shouldn't be in a kids film. It's like in the Alvin & The Chipmunks sequel...excuse me Squeakquel...(I hate that Grammarly corrected my spelling on that) that there was a Silence Of The Lambs reference. Are kids just getting into horror at a younger age nowadays while some grown adults find things like opposing opinions, males and pale skin colours offensive? Come for me SJW's, for I am dead inside, and this movie killed me.

After that, it's mostly just the fact that every single parent in this film is terrible at being parents. I'm not even joking. Odin (Bob Hoskins) doesn't listen to Loki. Loki only wants the baby who would technically be his son, to play with and not be a father to. Tim doesn't know how to look after the baby after almost glassing him during a night feed and insisting that Tonya takes the baby with her to New York on her business trip. And Tonya is probably the worst of them all. She didn't get up during the night feed, didn't think about the baby when Loki decides he's going to keep him, oh no, she's more interested in the fact that when Tim puts on the mask he's hot. I'm not even joking, she literally says Quote: "Honey, you look hot." At that point I had to pause the film and think about my life choices. I even thought about hers for a moment, has she gotten any good work after this? Did she see the premier of the film and think "fuck...nobodies going to hire me after that scene."

I know I've said in previous posts that it's good to scare children and that it's, in a way, necessary. Do not show them this. This is in a whole new world of scary, this doesn't ease your child into an uncomfortable atmosphere it just kinda starts off darkly lit and then Ben Steins face fucking comes off. It's horrific, do not show your kid this unless you think they can handle a true horror film.

I really wish I wanted to talk more about this but...I don't. This film hurt me in places I never thought I could be hurt. I have a headache from this film, I feel dizzy and sick after watching it. If you want to watch this then I'll give you some advice:

1. Don't watch it in 3D. You'll be in enough pain in 2 dimensions, you don't need to add to your own suffering.
2. Don't eat before watching. The editing, animation and just general shot direction in this will make you dizzy and sick. If you eat, you'll more than likely throw up like I did before I started writing this.
3. Keep a lot of water near you. Because it's nice to stay hydrated and it may keep dizziness at bay, not by much but maybe enough

That's it, I'm off to watch Clue now. I need a comedy that's genuinely funny. Peace out.

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film (and God bless you if you do) then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.

The Cable Guy

This is like what...the third or fourth film I've seen where someone mentally snaps.

Director: Ben Stiller

Writers: Lou Holtz Jnr

I've been trying to write this for three fucking days.

Another film that would have done much better if it was released in the 2000's rather than back in 1996, it would have resonated with a hell of a lot more people. With the commentary on television and people caring more about that than their own lives, it's also fairly relevant today with people on their phones. If Ben Stiller did a follow up to this but with social media maybe, it could really work, hell, it might even give Jim Carrey some work again, where is that Canadian rubber-man anyway? He's talented enough, why hasn't he gotten any scripts? 

Anyway, first of all, let's discuss Matthew Broderick. I personally do not like this guy, he can't act. I mean that's rich coming from someone who dropped out of a performing arts course for a year but y'know, it just gets to me how crap he is whenever I see him on screen, like yeah he's good in this but that's because his bland wide-eyed expression looks like it can be terror and stress and complete bewilderment. Well, good is a bit of a stretch, he's ok in this, the blandness is offset by Carrey's craziness. Aside from that, I cannot stand him. I feel insulted every time he tries and I don't understand how he was such a popular actor at one point in time. The fact that this film is centred around him having his life destroyed is just...relieving to me. It soothes me. 

Andy Dick is in this. Yeah. Andy Dick. When I saw him I thought it was Tom Green, that guy from Freddy Got Fingered....Don't...Just don't go look at it unless you're willing to watch it more than once. I'm not entirely sure who's worse for this film really. Andy Dick is a big name but has a terrible reputation for...I'm not entirely sure. It's not like I didn't try to look it up but I kept getting bs answers. The closest I got to finding out was that he's just a terrible person to work with and he's obnoxious and that's why he's got such a horrible reputation. But then you have Tom Green who...Isn't really a big name in comparison he just made a horrible film and I think he was a part of that early 2000's bad tv stuff. I wouldn't know because during the early 2000's I was a very small child. So I wouldn't know who's worse to have been put in this film but we got Andy Dick and thankfully he has limited screen time. 

Jim Carrey does...oddly well considering I've heard people say that this film could have ruined his career. Seriously. People apparently only ever saw him being funny and that putting him in such a dark possibly serious role was...a foreign concept to them. I mean he did move onto serious work in the future such as Eternal Sunshine and arguably The Truman Show. Nobody liked to see such a funny man in harsh shadows and glowing green eyes and just...basically portraying someone who obviously didn't have the proper upbringing and it reflects that. Of course, he made Liar Liar straight after this and the masses were once again comfortable. Like I said, Carrey does such a good job in this, especially during that karaoke scene. I won't say anything about it but this is probably the funniest scene in the entire film, honestly, if you want to know what I'm on about either Youtube the scene or watch the film. It's just hilariously uncomfortable. But yeah, Carrey is great in this and I really don't understand how people ever saw this as a "not Jim Carrey role" y'know? 

Then we have Jack Black, he's got a fairly small role in this and honestly, with him, he's kinda hit or miss. Here, however, he's pretty good at the rejected friend. You really do feel bad for this guy and there's even a scene in which he works out why the name Chip Douglas sounds familiar and he just looks so smug. The actual visual definition of the cat that got the cream. It's great to see, honestly. 

I also loved the side plot where it's following the trial of Ben Stiller's character Sam Sweet. It's really interesting to see and I kinda wanna see a mockumentary about this thing. It could talk about twin envy which is mentioned and with today's technology you could so easily do doubles of Ben Stiller, or just do it the old fashioned way and use makeup and costume and such but...either way, I'd like to see it. I also want to know whether Same Sweet was guilty or not but y'know, the point of it being in the film without a verdict was for people to stop being so obsessed with the lives of others and just focus on your own life. Don't let the tv suck you in too much.

Anyway, this was really hard to work out what to talk about. There was nothing especially good in it aside from the side plot and the karaoke scene and there wasn't anything especially bad about it aside from the fact that Matthew Broderick was in it. I just thought I should talk about how the actors did in this and maybe in the future, I'll come back to this and try to give it a better look over. It's not a bad film and it's definitely not a masterpiece. Just something fun to sit back and enjoy. Go look at it and see what you think of it, maybe you can find a stronger opinion than I could. Maybe you'll see something genuinely terrible or extremely amazing, I hope you do at least. Anyway, that's it for today. G'night guys.

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then please go and support its creators by buying the  DVD or Bluray.

Babe

You will believe pigs can talk.

Director: Chris Noonan 
Writers: Dick King-Smith (Novel)
               George Miller (Screenplay)
               Chris Noonan (Screenplay)

I'm gonna get this out of the way first. When I was little this film freaked me the fuck out. I'm not joking, it kind of actually blew my mind as a 5-year-old. These animals were actually speaking, there wasn't any gum in their mouths, there weren't any obvious camera tricks that my little brain could have picked up on. These animals were acting and it scared the hell out of me, what if I told people I didn't like the film and that duck came for me? What's gonna happen if I eat meat? Will a pig come for me? These were the questions that plagued my mind as a kid and actually sent me into vegetarianism at a very young age. My parents had no idea why I suddenly wasn't eating my burgers or turkey dinners but they thought I'd picked it up at school. These days I'm a big fan of the chicken nugget and this film because I'm still so blown away by the effects, puppetry and animatronics. Like it does still kinda freak me out, y'know with that animation during the opening credits and that kinda off music that's trying to sound intense and whimsical at the same time but actually kinda sounds like some bad creepypasta music? But I appreciate it now because I understand the mood it's trying to set you up with. As a kid I would have probably shit myself if I saw these animals talk and act like...humans really. If it was quirky music leading me into this fun story about a pig who loses his family and almost gets eaten for Christmas dinner. Like I said in my Cry Baby Lane review, if you set the mood right, kids know what they're gonna be let in for and can choose to get out at that point if they think they can't handle it. Enough about my history with it, though, let's get talking about it.

First of all, I want to condemn this film. Not because it still kinda fucks with me but because I believe this is where Illumination studios got the idea for the minions, that shit's not cool guys. If you're unaware of what I'm on about, there are three little mice that sing together and introduce the different chapters in the film. They're genuinely adorable and don't really harm society like those yellow pills are. If you don't know what minions are then...go look them up yourself, I've given them enough attention.

Next, I wanna talk about that scene where Maa (Miriam Flynn) ~ spoiler ~ dies. I'm amazed I even forgot about that. So basically, Maa, what a great name for a sheep, is Babe's (Christine Cavanaugh) first insight into the way sheep work and praises him for being polite and lovely and that this is going to help him go far. Essentially, Maa...God, I just can't get over that, Maa is the lovely encouraging elderly lady of the film, a Grandmother figure to Babe if you will. Now, in the film, some rude guys come in and let their dogs loose and eventually they get chased off once Farmer Hoggett (James Cromwell) has been alerted to what's happening but leaves Maa as a casualty of the carnage. So considering this is a G-rated film she's probably just sprained her ankle or gotten a bump? Nah this thing gets its throat ripped out. Like you see the gash in the fleece, not the skin but...you know what it is. You know that thing's dying. It gets darker, though, you see the body hanging over the side of the back of the cart thing. Tongue hanging out and everything. I honestly cannot believe I forgot about this, I mean I haven't seen this film in....at least 10 years or so, so at I can understand that as a kid I would have just accepted this and just felt uncomfortable but you know people would complain about it, protest it even. But shit, I just...I understand why this scene was put in with a G rating, and I love that this would have challenged me as a kid and even taught me about death because I sure as hell know that my parents didn't tell me about it. Crazy fucking scene this.

There's also the very unrealistic representation of a human being waking up early in the morning. Crack of dawn early. Esme Hoggett (Magda Szubanski) just sits straight up and ready for the day, going so far as to praise her alarm clock. Dunno if this character is on drugs or a non-human creature wrote this or this is how she or the director thinks that this is how farmers wives wake up in the morning but damn. I struggle waking up from a nap. Actually no, I wake up from a nap and go straight back to sleep. I'm a serial napper. So if it was the drugs I want a lifetime supply because I sleep too much and I don't really wanna look at life, it's getting pretty unhealthy at this point, it's ruining my life. Point being, nobody wakes up like that, let alone praises their friggen' alarm clock. Fuck me.

Then, there's a comment from Ferdinand the duck (Danny Mann). Quote: "I suppose the life of an anorexic duck doesn't amount to much in the broad scheme of things." And yes, those are the exact words used. I heard the line while writing a previous note about thinking the duck was voiced by Gilbert Gottfried and thought to myself...no...no that's not right? So I rewound the DVD and played it again and thought...the same, so again I rewound but this time I put subtitles on, I pressed play and for damn sure that's what the subtitles said. I was just kinda gobsmacked really. So many questions were running through my mind, why is the duck anorexic? Why is he calling himself anorexic really? Has he been diagnosed by a vet? A Quack? ~Please laugh that was really funny to me~ How would a farm duck even know what anorexia is? Do ducks even have mental illness' such as anorexia? So many questions flying through my mind and I just thought well...move on. You're not gonna get any answers from a paused DVD. So I pressed play and tried to shake that weird feeling. Guess what? It ain't brought up again. Like...I guess there would be answers in the book but for someone who's never read the book then...where're the answers? And what about the parents of those overly observant kids who may have picked up on it? Imagine the questions they'd get on a farm/park/petting zoo etc visit. Jesus Christ.

The angle's on the humans are a little weird, except for some on the farmer, I mean I get that we're seeing this through the eyes of the pig and that he sees these people through an uncomfortable lens except for him because he treats him well and feels...better about him than the others. But do we really need the wide angle of the Hoggett's granddaughter crying and being an ungrateful cow over the fact that she didn't want the dolls house that the farmer had built for her and put all his love and effort into building for her? She wanted the one she saw on TV. And as she cries, you see her mother, I think it is, smiling in the background like...who raised this child? For real, who raised her? Y'all aren't doing it right if you're watching her have a tantrum and grinning like "oh dear, sorry pop but ya did wrong making something sentimental for her, you're a fucking joke you pop." Bad parenting. And the thing is, there's a close-up of Hoggett's face and you see his hope and happiness and excitement die in his eyes. You see a will to hate this kid for the rest of his life build in his soul. You see the pain and you really feel for him. Poor guy. Christmas really is carnage.

My last gripe is that the final third of this film just kinda flies by, Maa gets ruthlessly murdered, Babe is allowed into the house, finds out pigs are food, he runs away, gets a cold, refuses to eat, gets a top song sang to him, eats something and ends up competing in Sheepdog Trials and, no surprise, wins. This really does just kinda fly by and you're thinking...the chapters are so short anyway so why is this just rushing to end? Is it because you don't want to kill anything else? Do you not want any more cult-like vibes after the "Baa, ram, ewe" thing, and don't come at me saying it's not cultish because that's how you're seeing it but maybe that's because you drank the Koolaid as a kid. I did too, but as we grow and we become aware of things, other things resemble cults and this is one of them. Beware of sheep guys, they're gonna indoctrinate you into their...grass eating ways...
I got off topic there, my point being, I don't understand why this just kinda sprinted to the finish line after it was taking a pretty well-paced jog throughout the beginning.

Despite all my bitching, this is still an incredible film, the effects hold up so fucking well like...really fucking well. I was just as blown away today as I was when I was a 9 year old. In some places, it does look a bit clunky and the dubbing isn't great in a couple of places but really...who cares? This is genuinely amazing. I really can't praise it enough. It looked like animals acting back then and it looks like animals acting today. If films today can take note of this and start making use of multiple effects and a lot of effort then people will still talk about them. Maybe with all the live-action remakes that Disney is doing, they could do this and their remakes won't be forgotten about so easily. Just a thought. Christ, I can't say anything nice without bashing something...

Another really good yet odd thing I noticed, which I'm not going to complain about, the humans don't get a lot of dialogue or development. This is important because, y'know the story is about a pig and his social struggles, not the farmer being a lucky idiot. You'd think this would harm your connection to these people but it really doesn't. They don't say much but from their body language and the way they handle themselves and the things around them, you really feel it. You really do feel it and I just find it amazing that this is something that's done so well when you very rarely see it in today's world. These days, the tree down the road that has nothing to do with anything gets its own scene of exposition and...I don't know, it's just nice to see something so chill in a way you know? You're not being bombarded with information. The story knows where it's focus is and stays focused.

Finally, let's talk about that musical number. You know the one. If I had words. Fucking lovely song that, I remember as a kid if I had a nightmare about this Otis TheAardvarkk toy I had that genuinely scared me, I'd go to my parents and get rejected because...it's a fucking toy get over it, so I'd go back to bed and sing this to myself. I almost forgot this song even existed until I put the DVD in and thought...shit, this is the film with that song, and I just got insanely excited for that scene. When it got to that scene I cried, not hard or anything but tears were definitely rolling down my cheeks uncontrollably. I almost forgot that once Hoggett had finished singing to the pig, he tries to entertain him by dancing for him and it just...I cried more I can't lie. It shows that this man was willing to soothe his pig and then try to cheer him up by making himself look like a tit. It really is beautiful to see, this man cares about the emotional stability of his pig and I shouldn't have cried over it but I did. It's a shame the scene ends so abruptly but...wouldn't you stop dancing for your pig if you clocked that the rest of your farm were watching you through your window?

Overall, I still love this film. It's darker than I remember, no doubt about that but now that I'm older and watching it again I'm thinking...wow, this has so many things I never really picked up on as a kid but I appreciate a hell of a lot more as a pseudo-adult. I'm 19, I don't wanna be an adult, technically I'm still a teenager so we're rolling with it until I'm 20. Anyway, if you've not seen it in years or haven't seen it at all, or hell, if you watched it last week, I urge you to watch this again. This film is a little masterpiece that I feel flies way too far under the radar.

This is just my opinion, if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then please go and support its creators by buying the book, DVD or Bluray. 

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

The cast of Harry Potter reunite.

Director: Tim Burton
Writers: John Logan (screenplay)
                Hugh Wheeler (musical)
                Christopher Bond (musical adaptation)

I'm not sure how, but my original statement stands. Johnny Depp gets about singing and murdering the cast of Harry Potter. It's quite incredible really how many people from that series is in this. I don't know whether Helena Bonham Carter approached Burton with the idea to put all these people in this film or it was just a freaky coincidence but that's not what I want to talk about with this one. I wanna talk about the good and the bad. The bad being how throughout most of it, all I could focus on was the fact that both Johnny Depp and Jamie Campbell Bower play Gellert Grindelwald in...what I'm going to call the Wizarding Cinematic Universe. Depp playing him in the Fantastic Beasts series and Campbell Bower playing him for around 5 to 10 seconds in Deathly Hallows Part one, blink and you miss him but he's there. Honestly, this was the thing that was taking up most of my focus, I had to watch this twice to make notes that weren't "this is weird". Yes, I focus on weird shit but...oh well.

Next problem, this whole murderous rampage is brought on because Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman) wanted to get laid and the one thing standing in his way was the fact the women he wanted to fuck was married so he banishes him. Hilarious on its own but later on you see him sentence a child to death by hanging...why not just do that to Todd/Barker (Johnny Depp) in the first place? Maybe your head was clouded with lust for this man's wife but...there was always the possibility that he could come back with Cruella DeVil or Bride of Frankenstein hair (I couldn't choose which one) and go on a killing spree forcing the majority of his neighbours into cannibalism, all in the name of revenge. Sometimes it's best to just either rub one out or go elsewhere.

Another little thing that's more a nitpicky than anything else, everyone's teeth here are just way too nice. Aside from the Beadle (Timothy Spall). His teeth were appropriately shite for the time period this is set in. Plus my very last nitpick would be that during the number Epiphany, my personal favourite song from this aside from Pretty Women, Mrs Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter) pretty much just watches Todd have a breakdown and as the film goes on she practically encourages his mental break. She may see it as just him being angry and vengeful but...he clearly isn't.

What I love in this, is all the creative choices. Like the blood, for example, it's taken me a while to realise this but for years I always thought that the blood in Burton films (when you see it anyway) is always a standout bright red and it looks a hell of a lot like the blood that would be shown in old Hammer Horror movies. I was watching The Devil Rides Out the other night and the blood stood out to me, it's so vivid against the darkness of the rest of the film. I mean the film isn't dark dark like some of the older Hammer films but dark enough that the vividness of the red just really jumps off the screen. I feel like when making his films, Burton has taken a lot of influence from these classics and I love that. It's amazing in a way. The way this is written is also great, being English myself I can see a lot of humour in this that could come across to a lot of other people who aren't British as...just horrible really. Such as in the scene where Toby (Edward Sanders) is talking to Mrs Lovett about his time in the workhouse and she just completely dismisses him with a "that's nice" sort of line. It really is beautiful to see the English mannerisms being accurately portrayed in this. Maybe it's because it's a mostly English cast but I just loved it. Last good thing I want to talk about is the music. Personally, I love film musicals...mostly. Mamma Mia was more representative of a stage musical thrown on screen because of high demand. This one doesn't hold you hostage which I'm extremely thankful for. Everyone here has a pretty good voice to listen to, I don't know about the technicalities of it but for a general audience who don't know about singing technicalities, it's pretty good. Shockingly good voice in Sacha Baron Cohen, makes you wonder what his voice is like when he's not doing an Italian accent while singing.

So that's it, this is a really good Tim Burton film to look at when you think about his recent decline in filmmaking, specifically his "reimaginings". I mean Miss Peregrine's Home For Peculiar Children was a damn good film and even has the funniest fight scene I've seen in a film in a long time. I'm sure it wasn't supposed to be funny but it was just hilarious. Anyway, this was your second one for today, have a good night guys.

This is just my opinion and if you disagree then that's great, I'm open to discussion and I'm always interested to hear how you feel about this film. This is also a critique which is considered "Fair Use" under the Copyright Act 1976. If you like this film then go and support its creators by buying the DVD or Bluray.